New NAFTA: Text of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Revealed

(President Trump screwed up by agreeing to this, because it undermines American sovereignty. Citizens must write Congress and demand they declare the agreement unconstitutional.)

Late Sunday night, Canada agreed to join the new renegotiated NAFTA — officially named the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA — meeting the self-imposed midnight deadline in order to complete an agreement in time for current Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to sign it before he leaves office on December 1.

In a joint statement United States Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said:

Today, Canada and the United States reached an agreement, alongside Mexico, on a new, modernized trade agreement for the 21st Century: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). USMCA will give our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses a high-standard trade agreement that will result in freer markets, fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region. It will strengthen the middle class, and create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half billion people who call North America home.

We look forward to further deepening our close economic ties when this new agreement enters into force.

We would like to thank Mexican Economy Secretary Ildefonso Guajardo for his close collaboration over the past 13 months.

Within hours of their announcement, the full text of the agreement was posted on the USTR website and can be read here.

The proposed USMCA has been widely portrayed as a replacement for NAFTA, which supposedly will no longer exist. Yet an honest look at the new agreement shows that what will no longer exist is the highly unpopular NAFTA name. In fact, not only does the USMCA retain sovereignty-diminishing provisions found in NAFTA, but it actually strengthens and expands them.

The USMCA has a total of 34 chapters, 12 more than the original 1994 NAFTA, which only had 22 chapters. Unlike the 1994 NAFTA, the USMCA includes chapters on labor, the environment, anticorruption, regulatory policy, competitiveness, and Mexico’s exclusive ownership of its gasoline and natural gas resources, among others.

The following is a list of the USMCA’s 34 chapters, along with their annexes:

1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions

2. National Treatment and Market Access for Goods (US Tariff ScheduleUS TRQ AppendixMX Tariff Schedule, CA Tariff Schedule, CA TRQ Appendix)

3. Agriculture (Agriculture ChapterMexico-US Bilateral AnnexCanada-US Bilateral AnnexAlcohol AnnexProprietary Food Formulas Annex)

4. Rules of Origin, with Product Specific Rules

5. Origin Procedures

6. Textiles and Apparel

7. Customs and Trade Facilitation

8. Recognition of the Mexican State’s Direct, Inalienable, and Imprescriptible Ownership of Hydrocarbons

9. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

10. Trade Remedies

11. Technical Barriers to Trade

12. Sectoral Annexes

13. Government Procurement

14. Investment

15. Cross-Border Trade in Services

16. Temporary Entry

17. Financial Services

18. Telecommunications

19. Digital Trade

20. Intellectual Property

21. Competition Policy

22. State-Owned Enterprises

23. Labor

24. Environment

25. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises

26. Competitiveness

27. Anticorruption

28. Good Regulatory Practices

29. Publication and Administration

30. Administrative and Institutional Provisions

31. Dispute Settlement

32. Exceptions and General Provisions

33. Macroeconomic Policies and Exchange Rate Matters

34. Final Provisions

In total, the USMCA is a whopping 1,809 pages —1,572 pages for the treaty itself, 214 pages for annexes, and 23 pages for side letters. In comparison, NAFTA was over 1,700 pages long — 741 pages for the treaty itself, 348 pages for annexes, and 619 pages for additional footnotes and explanations.

Once in force, the agreement will have a 16-year life, after which it will automatically be terminated unless the countries agree to renew the agreement for another 16 years. According to Article 34.7 of Chapter 34, entitled “Final Provisions,” the “Agreement shall terminate 16 years after the date of its entry into force, unless each Party confirms it wishes to continue the Agreement for a new 16-year term.” In other words, if the USMCA goes into effect in 2019, the agreement would not terminate until the year 2035 unless it is renewed for another 16 years, at which point it would not expire until 2051.

However, the United States, Mexico, and Canada will have an opportunity to review the agreement every six years, at which time they can decide whether to renew it or not, or propose changes. If during the review, the head of state of one of the countries expresses a desire to remain in the agreement, their agreement will be given an automatic renewal. Countries also have the opportunity to withdraw from the agreement with a six-month written notice. Even if one country withdraws, the agreement remains in effect for the other countries.

According to Article 34.6, “A Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.”

Submission to International Authority

Consistent with other globalist schemes, the USMCA follows the “rules-based system” of compliance to international authorities such as the World Trade Organization, International Labor Organization, a plethora of United Nations conventions including the Law of Sea treaty, and the furtherance of “sustainable development,” which is mentioned no less than six times in the environment chapter.

One example of the USMCA’s complete subordination to international authority can be found in Article 24.18 of the new environment chapter, regarding fisheries, which states in part:

3. Each Party shall base its fisheries management system on the best scientific evidence available and on internationally recognized best practices for fisheries management and conservation as reflected in the relevant provisions of international instruments aimed at ensuring the sustainable use and conservation of marine species.

The footnote below for that section defines what exactly those “international instruments” are, stating:

These instruments include, among others, and as they may apply, United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, done at New York, December 4, 1995 (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas(Compliance Agreement), done at Rome, November 24, 1993, the 2001 FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU Fishing), and the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing.

Toward a North American Union

In a bold step toward a potential North American Union, the USMCA establishes a new governing international bureaucracy. Chapter 30 of the agreement establishes the creation of a Free Trade Commission as a regional governing bureaucracy overseeing various lower regional committees. Article 30, section 1, of the agreement states, “The Parties hereby establish a Free Trade Commission, composed of government representatives of each Party at the level of Ministers or their designees.” Article 30, section 2, outlines the various functions and powers of the Free Trade Commission as follows:

1. The Commission shall:

(a) consider matters relating to the implementation or operation of this
(b) consider proposals to amend or modify this Agreement;
(c) supervise the work of committees, working groups, and other subsidiary
bodies established under this Agreement;
(d) consider ways to further enhance trade and investment between the Parties;
(e) adopt and update the Rules of Procedure and Code of conduct ; and
(f) review the roster established under Article 31.8 (Roster and Qualifications
of Panelists) every three years and, when appropriate, constitute a new

The Free Trade Commission requires the United States, Mexico, and Canada to “establish and oversee a Secretariat comprising national Sections.” All three countries will be responsible for establishing and maintaining a “permanent office of its Section and be responsible for its operation and costs.” The role of the Secretariat will be to assist and promote the work of the Commission, provide administrative assistance to any dispute-settlement panels, and to cover the costs and expenses for panelists, assistants, and experts involved in a dispute-settlement proceeding.

Beneath the Free Trade Commission, the USMCA authorizes all three countries to establish the following subordinate committees:

• Committee on Agricultural Trade,
• Committee on Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures,
• Committee on Textile and Apparel Trade Matters,
• Customs and Trade Facilitation Committee,
• Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade,
• Committee on Government Procurement,
• Committee on Transportation Services,
• Committee on Financial Services,
• Committee on Telecommunications,
• Committee on Intellectual Property Rights,
• Committee on State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies,
• Environment Committee,
• Committee on SME (Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises) Issues,
• North American Competitiveness Committee,
• Committee on Good Regulatory Practices, and an
• Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes

The specific functions for each committee are outlined in their corresponding chapters. Nevertheless, all of these committees are to be comprised of representatives from the governments of all three countries. The committees are responsible for overseeing and helping to implement the agreement in their particular area. They will also be tasked with addressing any issues that arise under their area.

Committees will meet regularly or on an annual basis, and they are supposed to help encourage or foster greater cooperation and trade among all three countries in their given areas. Committees can also propose changes or revisions to the chapter in the agreement that corresponds to their area. All of the committees’ work, discussions, findings, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Free Trade Commission for consideration.

And much like the TPP Commission, the Free Trade Commission can make changes to the USMCA without the consent of Congress. In fact, the agreement completely undermines Congress’ Constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations, such as Mexico and Canada, and to impose tariffs on them should the need arise, as in the case of national security.

The Free Trade Commission would also have the power to consider or adopt any changes to a country’s scheduled tariff commitments by accelerating the elimination of tariffs or by making “adjustments to the Tariff Preferential Levels established in Chapter 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods).”

Among the most revealing and unsurprising aspects of these transnational committees, which underscores the value of the USMCA to the Deep State, is the stated objective of the North American Competitiveness Committee. In the USMCA’s Chapter 26 on competitiveness, all three countries agree to establish a Committee on Competitiveness, or a North American Competitiveness Committee, with “a view to promoting further economic integration among the Parties and enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports.” In other words, the committee’s objective is not about making the United States, Mexico, and Canada more competitive with each other, but making the three of them as a bloc more competitive with the rest of the world, hence its function to promote “further economic integration” between the three countries.

USMCA will not help the United States, Mexico, or Canada be more competitive individually or boost any one of three countries’ economies. The Deep State does not wish for the United States alone to be competitive with the rest of the world, or maintain global economic dominance; instead it must surrender its sovereignty — along with that of its neighbors — to a new supranational body that will supposedly protect “North American” jobs, industry, and economy.

Rather than putting “America first,” as President Trump has repeatedly promised, or to “Make America Great Again,” his new NAFTA, the USMCA, demotes the United States to second tier in pursuit of making North America great. The USMCA makes North America great at the expense of the United States and its national sovereignty.

Under this scheme, the United States will be required to surrender its sovereignty in order for a chance to be a member of the winning team. Americans have been lied to and duped by their government into believing that their elected leaders are working in their interest, only to subordinate America’s interests to those of North America. It’s only a matter of time before the same charade is pulled on North America in order to integrate it with the world’s other regional trade blocs (i.e. the European Union, African Union, Union of South America, Eurasian Economic Union, RCEP, TPP, T-TIP) into one world economic union and commission, under the auspices of the United Nations and the World Trade Organization.

The result of “promoting further economic integration” among the United States, Mexico, and Canada, necessitating the creation of an all-powerful, unelected so-called Free Trade Commission will be nothing less than a North American Union, and that alone should motivate patriotic Americans to vehemently reject the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

CFS NAU Banner

Far from making America great again, the USMCA is a bag of goodies for globalists and a death certificate for American national sovereignty.


Source: New NAFTA: Text of U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) Revealed

Posted in Constitution, Globalism, Foreign Policy | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Dept. of Justice Admits Flu Shot Is Most Dangerous Vaccine In US – News Punch

The flu shot is only the fifth most popular vaccine in the United States, however it is by far the most dangerous, according to a report released by the Department of Justice that confirm more than half of all claims settled by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program involve the influenza vaccine.

As reported by Health Impact News, during the period covering 16 August to 15 November 2013, 139 claims were settled by the Vaccine Court, 70 of which received compensation. Of these settled claims, 42 – or 60 percent – were for injuries caused by the flu vaccine. The remaining 40 percent were for injuries caused by 11 other vaccines.

The greatest number of injuries by far that were reported as a result of the flu vaccine were for Guillain-Barré Syndrome, or GBS, a condition which the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke describes as follows:

Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) is a disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks part of the peripheral nervous system. The first symptoms of this disorder include varying degrees of weakness or tingling sensations in the legs. In many instances the symmetrical weakness and abnormal sensations spread to the arms and upper body. These symptoms can increase in intensity until certain muscles cannot be used at all and, when severe, the person is almost totally paralyzed. In these cases the disorder is life threatening – potentially interfering with breathing and, at times, with blood pressure or heart rate – and is considered a medical emergency. Such an individual is often put on a ventilator to assist with breathing and is watched closely for problems such as an abnormal heart beat, infections, blood clots, and high or low blood pressure. Most individuals, however, have good recovery from even the most severe cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome, although some continue to have a certain degree of weakness.

The flu vaccine: a toxic recipe for disaster

Natural News reports:

The injuries caused by the flu vaccine, as listed in the Department of Justice report, are not limited to Guillain-Barré Syndrome, however.

They also include: neurological injury, peripheral neuropathy, painful myalgias, psychological sequella, opsoclonus-myoclonus syndrome, cerebellar ataxia, corneal transplant failure, transverse myelitis, encephalitis, shoulder injury, bilateral optic neuritis resulting in permanent legal blindness, leukoencephalopathy, chemically-induced multiple sclerosis, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, fibromyalgia, and death, among others.

[RELATED: Las Vegas Man Develops Guillain-Barré Syndrome After Receiving Flu Shot]

To the uninformed it might seem shocking that a medical procedure considered safe by the mainstream medical community could cause such serious health problems. When one considers the flu vaccine’s ingredients and adjuvants, however, it becomes totally understandable.

For one thing, the flu vaccine contains 25,000 times more mercury than is legally allowed in water. For another, statistics confirm that vaccinated people are actually more susceptible to the flu and often get more ill than those who focus on building up their own body’s immune system.

Reports like these raise many issues. For example, considering the severity of the reactions and conditions linked to the flu vaccine in just a three-month period, and remembering that very few adverse vaccine reactions are ever reported, why is the mainstream media not shouting this information from the rooftops?

Why is there virtually total media silence when it comes to the dangers of vaccines in general?

Why are we not given this information when we choose to vaccinate ourselves and our children with these potentially deadly vaccines?

Source: Dept. of Justice Admits Flu Shot Is Most Dangerous Vaccine In US – News Punch

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

An Eloquent Response by a Scottish Professor to Israel Boycotters | United with Israel

August 2018
<img class="i-amphtml-intrinsic-sizer" src="data:;base64,” />Dr. Denis MacEoin

Dr. Denis MacEoin (Screenshot)

Students at Edinburgh University voted to boycott Israel. A professor and expert on Middle East taught them, point by point, why they were so wrong. A must read!

Dr. Denis MacEoin, a non-Jewish Scottish professor, wrote a letter to his students who had voted to boycott Israel, explaining why that was so wrong.

The Edinburgh Student’s Association (EUSA) had put forward a motion to boycott all things Israeli, claiming that Israel is under an apartheid regime.

MacEoin is an expert in Middle Eastern affairs and was a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly.  Following is his letter to the students:

TO: The Committee Edinburgh University Student Association.

May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA?  I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain ‘s great Middle East experts in their day.  I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University . Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.  I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote.

What About the Facts? Reality?

I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves. Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby.

Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable.  But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel.  I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out.  Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a “Nazi” state.  In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor?  Where are the Israeli concentration camps?  The einzatsgruppen?  The SS?  The Nuremberg Laws?  The Final Solution?  None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for.

It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere).  Where?  When?  No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves.  But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Likewise apartheid.  For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled how things were in South Africa under the apartheid regime.  Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is.

Sad Comment on the State of Modern Education

That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education.  The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population.  Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else;Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world center; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law.  Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population).

In Iran, the Bahai’s (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran?  Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa.  They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews – something no blacks were able to do inSouth Africa.

Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank.  On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel , women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid.  Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home.

It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death.  That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief.

Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people.  Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

Students Who Have No Idea How to Think

University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others.  If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak.

I do not object to well-documented criticism of Israel.  I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations.  We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it’s clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens.

Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest).  Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran.  They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Bahai’s…  Need I go on?

The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.  I ask you to show some common sense.  Get information from the Israeli embassy.  Ask for some speakers.  Listen to more than one side.  Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties.  You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument.

They are not at university to be propagandized.  And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state.  If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930’s (which, sadly, there was not), don’t you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it?

Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you.  Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more.  You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play.  Please tell me that this makes sense.  I have given you some of the evidence.  It’s up to you to find out more.

Yours sincerely,
Denis MacEoin

Source: An Eloquent Response by a Scottish Professor to Israel Boycotters | United with Israel

Posted in disinformation, Islam, Islam apologists, propaganda | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

America Must Stand with Saudi Arabia in Yemen – American Greatness

By | December 2nd, 2018

Yemen has become the latest battleground in a regional intra-religious semi-cold war between the Sunni Arab states, nominally led by Saudi Arabia, and the Shiite-dominated Islamic Republic of Iran. The stakes are high as the two sides compete for primacy in a region that is home to a large portion of the world’s essential energy supply, as well as a transit point for some of the world’s most important maritime trading routes.

Should the United States get cold feet in Yemen and abandon its Saudi allies, then, it will ensure Iran becomes the region’s new powerhouse.

Currently, Houthi rebels—who are nothing more than pro-Iran malcontents—seek to dominate Yemen, turning it away from a pro-Saudi (and therefore moderately pro-American) country into a decidedly anti-American one. Those who worry about the humanitarian costs of the conflict are not wrong. They may be extensive. Yet, Washington must always concern itself with what’s in America’s national interest first. Yemen becoming a pro-Iranian enclave is more of a grave concern for us than the fact that the country’s civil war has become a shameful humanitarian disaster.

Take, for instance, the fact that Yemen’s coastline straddles some of the world’s busiest maritime trading routes. In particular, the Bab-el-Mandeb strait, which connects the Red Sea with the Gulf of Aden (and the wider Indian Ocean). Yemen is also just across—separated by the waterway—from Djibouti (where China now has some of its most important overseas military bases).

Regional Stability At Stake
When the internationally recognized, pro-Saudi regime ruled Yemen, global stability was assured, as vital trade occurred unabated. With the civil war having gone on for years and Iran intensifying its commitment to the Houthi rebels, the Saudis may lose their client in Yemen. With that the entire regional order would be destabilized further.

Consider this: most of the trade passing through the Bab-el-Mandeb either emanates from or travels to Egypt’s Suez Canal—meaning that as Yemen goes, so goes 8 percent of the world’s trade. And as Yemen becomes a major destabilizer along the Bab-el-Mandeb, the stability of the far more crucial Egypt will be next.

Consider, too, that the Egyptian economy receives roughly $5 billion a year from maritime trade passing near Yemen’s coastline. Cairo anticipates an increase in trade revenue to around $13 billion by 2023. One of the primary causes of the Arab Spring—which brought on the overthrow of the pro-American autocrat, Hosni Mubarak, and replaced him with an ardent member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Morsi, until the military took him out—was Egypt’s dire economic situation. Imagine what depriving Egypt of such important maritime trade could do to the political stability of Egypt and the wider region.

More important for our own interests is the fact that four percent of the world’s oil supply passes through the strait.

While some have proposed reopening old pipelines to lessen the world’s dependence on the Bab-el-Mandeb, as I argued several months ago, this is simply not a viable possibility. Yes, old pipelines could offset some of the economic damage. But no matter what, pipelines alone could not offset the loss of this waterway (at least not in the near-term). Therefore, transportation of oil would become more costly and the overall costs to consumers worldwide would increase.

No Concessions to Iran
By not fighting in Yemen, Saudi Arabia all but concedes the region to an empowered Iran. The Iranians already enjoy the ability to threaten global trade closer to their shores, in the even more important Strait of Hormuz. Should Iran gain a strategic foothold in Yemen, the mullahs would be able to threaten yet another maritime choke point in the Bab-el-Mandeb. Iran would also have another place to target its medium-range missiles at the Sunni world—and losing Yemen would compel Saudi Arabia to fulfill its threat of purchasing a stockpile of nuclear weapons from Pakistan. No one should want Riyadh, with its large population of Islamists, to possess even one nuclear weapon.

The Trump Administration has rightly pointed out the threat to the world that Iran poses. This is the reason for Trump having abandoned the ill-advised nuclear deal that former President Obama made with Iran in 2015. While not wanting to commit more American forces to another Mideast quagmire, President Trump astutely recognizes that the United States doesn’t have the luxury of simply abandoning the region. If it leaves forthwith, as some on both the American Left and even on the Right seem intent on doing, then other, less savory powers—such as Iran, but also Russia and China—would happily move in to dominate the world’s energy flows and major maritime trading routes.

Thus, Trump has decided to empower the Sunni Arab states (led by Saudi Arabia) as well as Israel to contain Iran. Abandoning the Saudi cause in Yemen means abandoning Saudi Arabia, which, in turn, means abandoning Israel, which all but assures Iran becomes the region’s new master. Virtually overnight, then, the entire American alliance system collapses, as others in the region compete to curry favor with the region’s new masters and abandon the United States.

Meanwhile, farther afield, other twitchy allies might start wondering whether they’ll be abandoned in their hour of need. While America should be more judicious about our alliances, we still cannot allow for our allies (and enemies) to believe we’re seeking to abandon the world; that would be against our interests.

Unfortunately, for now, the United States must either support Saudi Arabia or watch as Iran empowers itself—and threatens the United States.

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact

Photo Credit: Saleh Al-Obeidi/AFP/Getty Images

Source: America Must Stand with Saudi Arabia in Yemen – American Greatness

Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Climate change itself is already in the process of definitively rebutting climate alarmists who think human use of fossil fuels is causing ultimately catastrophic global warming.  That is because natural climate cycles have already turned from warming to cooling, global temperatures have already been declining for more than 10 years, and global temperatures will continue to decline for another two decades or more.

That is one of the most interesting conclusions to come out of the seventh International Climate Change Conference sponsored by the Heartland Institute, held last week in Chicago.  I attended, and served as one of the speakers, talking about The Economic Implications of High Cost Energy.

The conference featured serious natural science, contrary to the self-interested political science you hear from government financed global warming alarmists seeking to justify widely expanded regulatory and taxation powers for government bodies, or government body wannabees, such as the United Nations.  See for yourself, as the conference speeches are online.

What you will see are calm, dispassionate presentations by serious, pedigreed scientists discussing and explaining reams of data.  In sharp contrast to these climate realists, the climate alarmists have long admitted that they cannot defend their theory that humans are causing catastrophic global warming in public debate.  With the conference presentations online, let’s see if the alarmists really do have any response.

The Heartland Institute has effectively become the international headquarters of the climate realists, an analog to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  It has achieved that status through these international climate conferences, and the publication of its Climate Change Reconsidered volumes, produced in conjunction with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).

Those Climate Change Reconsidered volumes are an equivalently thorough scientific rebuttal to the irregular Assessment Reports of the UN’s IPCC.  You can ask any advocate of human caused catastrophic global warming what their response is to Climate Change Reconsidered.  If they have none, they are not qualified to discuss the issue intelligently.

Check out the 20th century temperature record, and you will find that its up and down pattern does not follow the industrial revolution’s upward march of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), which is the supposed central culprit for man caused global warming (and has been much, much higher in the past).  It follows instead the up and down pattern of naturally caused climate cycles.

For example, temperatures dropped steadily from the late 1940s to the late 1970s.  The popular press was even talking about a coming ice age.  Ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one actually due around now.

In the late 1970s, the natural cycles turned warm and temperatures rose until the late 1990s, a trend that political and economic interests have tried to milk mercilessly to their advantage.  The incorruptible satellite measured global atmospheric temperatures show less warming during this period than the heavily manipulated land surface temperatures.

Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen.  The PDO was cold from the late 1940s to the late 1970s, and it was warm from the late 1970s to the late 1990s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).

In 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1 degree Celsius by 2010.  Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and taxes?

Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus of Geology at Western Washington University, knew the answer.  He publicly predicted in 2000 that global temperatures would decline by 2010.  He made that prediction because he knew the PDO had turned cold in 1999, something the political scientists at the UN’s IPCC did not know or did not think significant.

Well, the results are in, and the winner is….Don Easterbrook.  Easterbrook also spoke at the Heartland conference, with a presentation entitled “Are Forecasts of a 20-Year Cooling Trend Credible?”  Watch that online and you will see how scientists are supposed to talk: cool, rational, logical analysis of the data, and full explanation of it.  All I ever see from the global warming alarmists, by contrast, is political public relations, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, and name calling, combined with admissions that they can’t defend their views in public debate.

Easterbrook shows that by 2010 the 2000 prediction of the IPCC was wrong by well over a degree, and the gap was widening.  That’s a big miss for a forecast just 10 years away, when the same folks expect us to take seriously their predictions for 100 years in the future.  Howard Hayden, Professor of Physics Emeritus at the University of Connecticut showed in his presentation at the conference that based on the historical record a doubling of CO2 could be expected to produce a 2 degree C temperature increase.  Such a doubling would take most of this century, and the temperature impact of increased concentrations of CO2 declines logarithmically.  You can see Hayden’s presentation online as well.

Because PDO cycles last 25 to 30 years, Easterbrook expects the cooling trend to continue for another 2 decades or so.  Easterbrook, in fact, documents 40 such alternating periods of warming and cooling over the past 500 years, with similar data going back 15,000 years.  He further expects the flipping of the ADO to add to the current downward trend.

But that is not all.  We are also currently experiencing a surprisingly long period with very low sunspot activity.  That is associated in the earth’s history with even lower, colder temperatures.  The pattern was seen during a period known as the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, which saw temperature readings decline by 2 degrees in a 20 year period, and the noted Year Without A Summer in 1816 (which may have had other contributing short term causes).

Even worse was the period known as the Maunder Minimum from 1645 to 1715, which saw only about 50 sunspots during one 30 year period within the cycle, compared to a typical 40,000 to 50,000 sunspots during such periods in modern times.  The Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, which the earth suffered from about 1350 to 1850.  The Maunder Minimum saw sharply reduced agricultural output, and widespread human suffering, disease and premature death.

Such impacts of the sun on the earth’s climate were discussed at the conference by astrophysicist and geoscientist Willie Soon, Nir J. Shaviv, of the Racah Institute of Physics in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Sebastian Luning, co-author with leading German environmentalist Fritz Vahrenholt of The Cold Sun.

Easterbrook suggests that the outstanding question is only how cold this present cold cycle will get.  Will it be modest like the cooling from the late 1940s to late 1970s?  Or will the paucity of sunspots drive us all the way down to the Dalton Minimum, or even the Maunder Minimum?  He says it is impossible to know now.  But based on experience, he will probably know before the UN and its politicized IPCC.

Source: Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling

Posted in Global Warming/Climate Change | Tagged | Leave a comment

Jim Acosta abused his press privilege

Just because you can doesn’t mean you should. That age-old advice about the distinction between freedom and wisdom came to mind as I read the ruling that requires the White House to reissue media credentials to CNN blowhard Jim Acosta.

Federal Judge Timothy Kelly said Acosta must be allowed to return because there was no due process in the decision to suspend him. Kelly, appointed by President Trump, emphasized he wasn’t ruling on the merits of the suspension or Acosta’s behavior, only the process.

“I have not determined that the First Amendment was violated here,” he wrote, adding that the White House has no obligation to call on Acosta for questions.

While the outcome is a setback for Trump, it is also sensible and points the way forward. The president responded by saying his team will draw up rulesrequiring “decorum” and standards of behavior, and predicts ultimate victory.

Actually, he’s already won something bigger than the case at hand. He’s established the principle that a press pass is not a license to lecture and hector the president while refusing to yield the microphone, all of which Acosta did.

The principle is so obvious it shouldn’t need to be clarified, but written rules are necessary because Acosta abused his privilege. Now the details of the rules must be spelled out to cover any future cases.

But there won’t be any future cases — if the press corps get its act together. The White House Correspondents’ Association must find the courage to police the bad apples in its ranks instead of waiting for the government to act, then running to the courts for protection.

Recall that Acosta got the boot because he was the rudest and most aggressive lout in the room, but was not alone in trashing decorum. For two years, members of the Trump-hating press have used televised briefings and press conferences as a stage to let the world know how they feel about the president.

While most reporters ask real questions, even pointed ones, Acosta and his ilk are engaged in a performance art that amounts to virtue signaling to their bosses and colleagues.

“Look at me,” they seem to say. “I’m fighting back.”

But it’s not the job of reporters to fight back. Theirs is to gather information, fairly and accurately, and let readers and viewers decide what to do with it.

I know how quaint that sounds. But following that tried-and-true formula is how the media built its credibility. The abandonment of decorum is part of the abandonment of standards and is destroying public trust.

This was hardly the first time Acosta starred in his own drama. Over and over, he makes himself the story, which is not appealing, even for some anti-Trumpers.

Indeed, the response to my column supporting the initial suspension reveals that Americans on both sides of the Trump line believe manners still matter. They differ over who is at fault, with Trump supporters seeing most journalists as Democrats with press passes, while Acosta supporters mostly argue he was justified in behaving badly because Trump does, too.

As reader Dave Druten put it, “Respecting a president is preferred conduct, but kowtowing to a proven liar is not proper journalism. You need to address the root of the problem and not the symptoms of disrespect it has spawned.”

Reader Deanne Payne offers yet another view, saying that, although she is not a Trump supporter, she is disturbed by media bias and the lack of professionalism. “I am a nurse and I care for people of all walks of life and my biases, as part of my job, have to be checked at the door,” she writes. “The approach by many in the media is undignified and disgraceful.”

Payne is on to something, both in moral and practical terms. The idea of using someone else’s conduct to justify your misconduct is childish. Go to any playground and you’ll hear a chorus of “he started it” defenses.

It’s simply laughable when adults use that lame excuse, which is what Acosta and his defenders are doing.

As for the practical fallout, there are good reasons why trust of the press is at an all-time low. The 2016 election was in part a referendum on the elite media’s disdain for Trump and his supporters.

For many of them, conduct like Acosta’s confirms Trump’s “fake news” charges because they see in him the kind of journalist they do not trust to tell the truth. And with surveys consistently showing 90 percent of presidential coverage is negative, it is hard to fault their conclusion.

Besides, the president, like all Americans, enjoys First Amendment rights, and nothing in the oath of office requires him to suffer an unfair beating in silence.

Still, instead of engaging in endless combat with press-pass partisans, Trump has other options. He could bar cameras at the daily briefings and without a TV audience, the Acosta types would be unlikely to don their Superman capes.

Trump could also reduce the frequency of the briefings or cancel them entirely. He could substitute more one-on-one interviews for press conferences. He could, in fact, shun the media altogether because none of these traditions of contact are fundamental or even tangential to freedom of the press.

The First Amendment is a key to American liberty in glorious ways, but it is not an excuse for bad manners. It is a tragedy of our era that the media must be reminded of that common-sense truth.

Source: Jim Acosta abused his press privilege

Posted in Donald Trump, media bias, media bias, news media | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Leaked Documents Prove Soros Working with UN Supporting Illegal Migrant Crisis | Neon Nettle

George Soros’ Open Society is working behind the scenes with the United Nations

On Sunday, the United Nations admitted it is supporting the illegal immigrants and caravans from Central America, currently marching towards the US southern border.In another report, the UN admitted they had mobilized extra staff and resources to help the illegal immigrants in the caravans.


Back in 2016, Breitbart obtained a leaked document from Soros’ Open Society Foundation revealing close links to UN migration representative and former Goldman Sachs executive Peter Sutherland.  George Soros’ Open Society also maintains that through Sutherland they are able to affect international migration policy due to the current migrant crisis. The leaked documents and today’s UN report shows the George Soros’ OSF is working behind the scenes with the United Nations to assist illegal migrants like the caravans marching to the southern US border.


Breitbart reported:

The paper, which told of how the migrant crisis presented an “opportunity” for the foundation to extend its global influence and attract more money, mentions Sutherland’s pro-migrant work.The foundation notes that through Sutherland they have been able to advocate at an “elite level” behind the scenes.


Open Society are one of the contributors to the Columbia Global Policy Initiative (CGPI) which hosts Mr. Sutherland and claim that through Sutherland they are able to influence international migration policy due to the current migrant crisis.


On the United Nations website, Sutherland is described as a “strong advocate for promoting practical action to increase the benefits of migration” and has routinely made comments against national borders and national sovereignty in Europe.


Sutherland has even called for the European Union to “undermine the homogeneity” of member states.Sutherland has even gone as far as defending all migrants regardless of whether or not they are legitimate refugees saying, “We’re not just talking, either, about refugees.We’re talking about economic migrants, many of whom could be the future, and some at the present… are survival fighters. They’re not to be dismissed as an irrelevance.”


On Sunday Fox News and Fox Business announced they had banned frequent guest Chris Farrell for making false accusations against Jewish billionaire and Democrat donor George Soros this past week on “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”On the Thursday broadcast, Farrell accused Soros of funding the migrant caravan that left Honduras earlier this month and is currently traveling through Mexico toward the U.S. border.

© Neon Nettle

Source: Leaked Documents Prove Soros Working with UN Supporting Illegal Migrant Crisis | Neon Nettle

Posted in Deep State, George Soros, Globalism, immigration | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment